Hi Warren -
I knew of most of these and am impressed you were able to grab all of
them in summary form so quickly. But - that's a lot of documents to say
something so simple as "don't squat". I agree that, collectively, the
documents say "don't squat", I wonder if they say it succinctly
On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 6:04 PM Michael StJohns
wrote:
> Actually, maybe there should be a general document "DNS Squatting
> Considered Harmful"?
I think that we (well, mainly ICANN) already have a large amount that says
things along these lines. See below..
> I personally don't see any real
Hi,
[Employed by ISOC, speaking for self]
Speaking as usual only for myself, it seems to me that if there were actual
demand for a WG that would actually W as a G on actual extensions, it would be
pretty trivial to charter it. What would be bad IMO is a “working group” that
functioned instead
Actually, maybe there should be a general document "DNS Squatting
Considered Harmful"? I personally don't see any real difference
between squatting on "onion" vs squatting on "zz" except that we ended
up with a ex post facto approval of .onion. And that AIRC was a near
thing.
So maybe:
> On 30 Jul 2021, at 23:34, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>
> Roy Arends writes:
>
>> Essentially, instead of making the pond safe, we’ll have a warning
>> sign that using the pond is at their own risk.
>
> The wording of said warning sign is the critical element, IMHO.
> Certainly my support of the
> On 30 Jul 2021, at 23:03, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>
> Hi Roy, WG,
Hi Rob,
> Roy, just for clarity, am I right to presume that the status of the document
> that you propose would purely be informational?
Correct.
> It is, of course, up to the WG to decide what to do with this
